DWood: my comments
led to a long discussion between the editors
... I didn't want to see a requirement in the SPARQL protocol for an illegal
use of WSDL 2.0
... editors were questioning ehther I was supportive or dismissive of WSDL 2
integration
... I support WSDL 2 bindings but want them to be legal
... the SPARQL language is still in Last Call; would the WG like my review of
that as well?
... I expect DAWG would like review from SWBPD for both the Language and the
Protocol
... I think Brian intended to review the Language

<aliman> I skimmed David's review, seemed
good but don't have nearly enough tech savvy (or time :) to do a proper
review

DBooth: I thought DavidW's review was fine
... what coordination is taking place with the WSDL folk?

DWood: it's the DAWG's task to do that
coordination
... there's a not insubstantial amount of work needed to resolve the
technical issue
... I don't think this work can be done during Candidate Rec phase

Ralph: is there an alternative for DAWG to not
be dependent on changes to WSDL 2?

DWood: DAWG would have to give up some features
in SPARQL Protocol
... I fear that the WSDL community is big enough that if SPARQL protocol is
non-conformant, it will lead to SPARQL not being implemented

DBooth: the WSDL work has been going on for a
long time. I was part of it at one time. I would not expect the WG to be very
receptive to making changes at this point.

Jeremy: WebOnt completed before RDF Core WG
finished
... we waited for a few months while RDF Core finished and this did not do
any harm
... it's not a bad thing for a WG to wait; didn't need to hold telecons
during that period

DBooth: I endorse David Wood's message that
SPARQL should conform to WSDL 2

DBooth: I propose that SWBPD recommend to DAWG
that the SPARQL Protocol conform to WSDL 2.0
... speaking personally, not for HP

3. FTF Preparation and future of WG

4. TF Updates

4.0 MM TF

Giorgos: see mail
from Jacco -- first draft of a deliverable has been produced
... would like to schedule 2 telecons; this Wed and 21 Oct
... would like to have 2 reviewers review a document 1 week before the f2f
... Mike Uschold has volunteered to be 1 reviewer

Jeremy: TF participants should read this draft
before first telecon, is Wednesday too soon?

Alistair: when we publish a revised SKOS WD,
should we publish all the variants or can we publish just the English
version?
... it would be nice to publish all the translations as a set but I don't
speak all the languages

Ralph: publishing a WD is a great way to
solicit those comments. The Task Force should advise readers of the spec
which words to consider to be normative, however.

Jeremy: the practice in W3C is that the [US]
English version is normative

<jjc> On translations - the Ruby
recommendation, which is primarily targeted at Japanese, was published on
31st May 2001, and translation came out 3rd August 2001. Conclusion: even
when Japanese would have been a well-motivated normative language, the rule
of US English first was followed

4.2 OEP

<ChrisW> nothing to report

<ChrisW> all actions continued

<aliman> chrisw is the QCR note ready to
review?

<ChrisW> yes

<aliman> where's the version I should
review?

<ChrisW> oh, wait, I take that back - QCR
note is NOT ready to review (sorry)

<aliman> ok, will wait on ChrisW to nudge
me when QCR is ready

<ChrisW> ack

Natasha: we're working on Semantic Integration,
may have something ready for f2f

4.5 Vocabulary management

TomB: we reached consensus on a deliverable to
help people understand what to serve at a namespace URI
... we expect to be able to document a common solution between Dublin Core,
SKOS, and FOAF
... this would create a nice example that others can follow